Bookworm v Barclaycard ***she's only been and won it! :-D*** - Page 3

joneshousehold · 28th May 2006, 22:12

Bookworm. I sent a Data Protection Act request to Barclaycard which they have only partially replied to. I have received some statements and a print out of other activity that does not show statements as such. However I managed to identify 30 occasions when charges were applied from the activity reports. I used standard dates to calculate interest (they tend to apply charges on the same date looking at the statements I do hold.) I have used this to draw up a claim of sorts and have included a comment about failing to reply to Data Protection Act and that the courts may require them to explain themselves when I take it there.

I haven't actually taken it to court yet although the LBA deadline has now expired as I already have one on going and another about to start so I thought I had better stagger them a bit.

Hope this information helps but do let me know if you want to know anything else.

Bookworm · 28th May 2006, 22:23

Yes, we seem to have received the same info. You see, though, they're saying that the majority of those times where I went overlimit or made late payments would have happened pre-2001, and therefore, although the printout shows a late payment, for example, it does not follow that a penalty charge would have been applied.

It's total hogwash, of course. And they know it. But they've painted themselves in a corner. Although they only refer to the existing statements they've sent, they draw an inference based on that pattern. Unfortunately for them, they'll have a real hard time proving me wrong by producing the actual documents, when they have said they couldn't provide them when I made a Subject Access Request. Either they lied, or they deliberately circumvented the Data Protection Act. Oh dear.

joneshousehold · 28th May 2006, 22:32

Can you not tie the entries in the activity reports for the periods when you have statements. I think I did to establish a pattern and then just adopted the same rules when I only had the activity reports. (Sorry if this is a case of grannies sucking eggs, I am trying to remember what I did but have a few glasses of wine clouding my memory!)

If as it seems from your posting they say that the system did not apply in the earlier periods, it would seem very strange. Could you adopt the old 'prove it to the court' approach?

Bookworm · 29th May 2006, 13:48

No, they're saying that they only started applying charges from mid 01. Sadly, the earliest statements I have are from Sept 01, so I can't confirm whether that's the truth. I suspect that if they say that, they could actually prove it in this instance, and that could make my case shaky.

The statements they have sent do show that things got better form 2004. Well, they would, that's when we consolidated. So, they make a massive leap and say: "Oh well, then, your breaches must mainly come from 95 - 01, when we didn't charge for them, therefore, you wouldn't have got charges, so you can't reclaim."

Of course, I know it's BS, because I know that end of 2000 was when things got hairy for us, when DH lost his job, and that before that, we were running our accounts pretty well. 01-04 was when things were at their worst, and I can prove that quite easily.

You are of course quite right in your methodology, and I thank you for your insights. As a matter of curiosity, when did you open your account? If it's pre- 01, would you have any old statements lying around, and would any of them show any charges at all? I can't believe they didn't charge before, I'd love it someone had any information there.

And you're also right in the "prove it" answer. They are making assumptions based on the last 2 yrs of my account behaviour, which is absurd. For starters, we got our mortgage in 96, and a badly run c/c account would have been a surefire way to get turned down for mortgages. Let's not forget that a judge will decide on probabilities, and as long as I can show that the rest of our finances were ok pre 01, they will have a hard time convincing a judge otherwise.

All in all, they have a very shaky position, and they know it. Offering me £60 when I'm looking at anythign between 1.5 and 2.6 k (before interest, and depending on how I work it out) is damn cheek.

joneshousehold · 29th May 2006, 14:19

Sadly I don't have any statements earlier, I shredded them and now wish I hadn't. I know we have had the account for ages. The earliest date on the Data Protection Act report is November 1992 and this may be when the a/c was opened.

I can't remember if they did always charge but I do believe they have for a long time and my gut reaction is that it was earlier than 2001. I have no evidence but I do think they are wrong. However our report does say the last time an annual fee was charged was December 2000 and this may support their statement. It's not definitive but then neither is my claim so we go into this with a pretty level position (that is we are both as shaky as each other!). They however do have the data so they have a great responsibility to prove it I believe.

I took the view that it was for them to prove my calculations are wrong. About half of our claim relates to 2001 and earlier so there is a strong incentive for them to show us the true amount.

I was pretty cross with them over the Data Protection Act report. It is almost a foreign language and there was no idiot's guide to terminology which the other institutions have supplied. It took me ages to work out what everything meant and even then some were guesses. If it gets to court I think I might have to adopt my very best 'little girl lost' approach and say I did the best I could despite the lack of help from BC. Mind you as we all know it won't get that far!

Good luck with your claim and let me know if you want any more information from me.

Bookworm · 29th May 2006, 16:20

The problem is we have to be prepared as if we were going to go to court, as if there are too may holes/variables, they might decide to chance it on the grounds that person looks as if they don't know what they're doing... The stronger our advance case, the better the odds they'll cave in.

Good luck to you too, don't hesitate to contact me if you need mutual support!

joneshousehold · 29th May 2006, 17:04

Thanks very much. Good luck with your too!

libertie · 4th June 2006, 23:31

I am just in the middle of going through my statements for Barclaycard. I kept all mine and they date from July 1999. At the moment it appears that i missed several payments and I can find no penalty charges at that time for missing payments or for late payments. They used to politely remind me that I had forgotten to make a payment and include the minimum payment in with the next months request. On my account there used to be a yearly membership fee, but never any penalties until a statement for Feb 2002. A late payment charge for £15, rising to £20 in Sept 02 and it has been that charge ever since. I believe it was around this time that they also got rid of the annual fee, probably they realised how much more money they could make by implementing late payment penalties.

Hope this helps, though I'm sure this is not what you wanted to hear.

Robertxc · 4th June 2006, 23:43

I think it's important to remember that in small claims the judge is unlikely to throw your claim out just because the other side can prove that the amount is wrong - especially if your numbers are based on complex interest calculations. What will almost certainly happen is that the judge will ask you if you agree with their revised figure, and if you do, he'll simply amend your claim. If you don't, he'll probably adjourn the case so that the two sides can try to agree a figure. I was in court once and when the sheriff discovered a mistake in my claim form he simply crossed it out and wrote in the correction!

Bookworm · 4th June 2006, 23:53

I agree, Robert, but from your experience, how would a judge react if that revised figure only came up when they submitted numbers they were asked for in a Subject Access Request, and refused to do so, therefore effectively forcing the claimant in submitting an estimated amount? What's your feel on that?

.

Robertxc · 5th June 2006, 00:11

I think the judge will mostly be interested in coming to the correct figure, whatever it is. I think the fact that they didn't provide the information when asked in a Subject Access Request will only become relevent if they try to have it thrown out for being incorrect. In truth though, I doubt they'd even try. Small claims is a fantastic leveller, and in my experience the judge/sheriff will focus most on 'seeking the truth' rather than legal technicalities. And if you think about it, small claims pretty much has to operate like that, because if it didn't, the average layman would get a good kicking from any professional litigation lawyer they came up against.

Robertxc · 5th June 2006, 00:25

Something else to bear in mind, which is rarely mentioned on the forum. There is an assumption that if the bank defends your claim you will all go off to court one day and the matter will be dealt with there and then. The reality is quite different. What actually happens is that you case will be heard in four or five hearings spread over about six months. Which gives all parties ample time to get all t heir ducks in a row.

There's no doubt that the first time you go to court against a huge company it's a very scary experience. But actually, when you come out you wonder what the fuss was about. Most of what happens in court is simply common sense, and if you're a layman the judges usually do a pretty good job of making sure that if you lose it's because your argument was wrong, not your procedure.

Bookworm · 8th June 2006, 13:21

Am I missing something here? Is it me?

To sum up, I asked B/card to refund me 2.6 k, based on their cr*p printout.

They replied, saying they only started charging for o/limit from mid 01, so my estimation was out of whack, offered me £60.

I answered last week, saying: ok, taking in that point (from 01) into account, still worked out 2.5k, prove me wrong.

Answer today: (now remember these people have claimed that my information is not covered under Data Protection Act, as microfiche)

1st, he encloses copies, clearly labelled "copy statement", clearly showing account number, name, account address. Now if that is not a relevant filing system, I sure as hell do not know what is. (they claim the microfiche is filed by date, btw)

Then, he says, that "on an exceptional basis", he has obtained copies of the statements frm december 02, but hasn't had a chance to retrieve earlier ones yet, and has reviewed the ones he has. For that period, says he, only 1 charge, which was refunded, and encloses copies of the said statement.

Therefore, surprise surprise, my calculations are wrong, says he. Accordingly, the offer of £60 stands, and is still open for me to accept.

He then proceeds to explain about Data Protection Act, bla bla bla...

I am currently seething at the arrogance of these people.

However, I think he may well at last have given me what I needed to go to the Information Commissioner with it, (thank you, Mr Walker, if you're reading this!).

I will now unleash my last volley before launching court action. (shhh for now)

For those who wonder why I haven't followed our own forum guidelines, letter/letter/court claim, let's just say that I wanted to test a few issues first, and see what came out. I'm really not that fussed about the money at this stage, since I never expected to see it again anyway in the first place...

More as it becomes available...

.

thecornflake · 8th June 2006, 13:35

Interesting. funny how things kind of 'turn up' when they suddenly get backed into a corner!

Good one for putting in the effort to try the different tactics - the microfiche argument in particular seems to causing a lot of issues so it would be nice to crack it.

lynzpower · 8th June 2006, 13:38

bookworm

I await your outcomes as I too am having the same microfiche issue, just posted a similar question.

Feel like im banging my head on a brick wall here, and it aint pretty, Im going in a foul mood

All the best to you
Lynz
xx

lynzpower · 8th June 2006, 13:53

bookworm

Do you think there is any point in phoning them up at b/card and saying to them, if you can give me my statements at £3 a copy then you blatantly have them there for me under the Data Protection Act

Or shall I just sue their asses? Dont really have the money to take this one to court as well, but will find it if I have to ? Its SO scandalous that they can even try to get away with what is one of the most used peices of legislation in the UK.

Bookworm · 8th June 2006, 15:34

People have already written to them about it. I think they ignore that. So far, the only route left seems to be the courts...

.

lynzpower · 8th June 2006, 15:40

have you ever called them bookworm?

I wish I had skype or Id record them using skylook, but alas I dont.

I might just phone them up now?

Bookworm · 8th June 2006, 15:44

Nope. I'm a firm believer that whatever bull they're going to feed me, I want it in writing, this way, no wriggling room. I've had too many prats saying I had misunderstood, what with me being "one of them bloody foreigners an' all, know what ah mean, mate?" notwithstanding the fact that my English is probably 20 times better then theirs... I don't take chances any more...

.

lynzpower · 8th June 2006, 15:48

i just spoke to them

Brief transcript in the other thread i just started

CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales also help us to keep helping YOU and ensure this site will remain free to use!

Small Claims Kit--	Small Claims Court Guide New Edition	Consumer Action Group envelope labels	Last Will & Testament Kit	Fight a Motoring Ticket

Alternatively you could purchase a CAG email address here, or maybe you'd prefer our address labels here
UPDATE: Consumer Forums ConsumerWiki is now LIVE - click here: ConsumerWiki